Judge David J. Cowan, Case Number: 20STPB06412, Date: 2025-05-09 Tentative Ruling

In re: Robert Conrad Living Trust: Tamara Morts v. Christian Robert Conrad, et al.,

On February 21, 2025, the Court scheduled trial to commence on June 6, 2025 - over four days.

On April 17, 2025, respondent Michael Mesnick (“Mesnick”), Trustee of the Robert Conrad (“Conrad”) Living Trust, filed the above-referenced motion to bifurcate trial into two separate trials, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) secs. 598 and 1048(b). Mesnick contends that the Court should try first the two causes of action of petitioner Tamara Morts (“Morts”) seeking to invalidate all amendments to the Trust, except those parts of those causes of action that turn on financial elder abuse, and then second, if Morts is determined to be a beneficiary of the Trust, try the other two causes of action for removal of Mesnick as trustee (under Probate Code sec. 15642) and for an accounting (under Probate Code sec. 16062), as well as the financial elder abuse part of the first two causes of action, all of which causes of action presuppose that they are brought by a beneficiary. Mesnick contends that Morts will not be able to prove that she is a beneficiary - given the number of amendments Conrad made to the Trust since she was a beneficiary under the Trust and Conrad’s alleged intent thereafter to disinherit Morts - and that therefore it would be more efficient to try these aspects of the petition separately as it will not then be necessary to try the other causes of action or address financial elder abuse. Finally, Mesnick asserts that whether there was financial elder abuse does not establish whether Morts is a beneficiary,[1] nor may Morts permissibly raise financial elder abuse where she was not a residuary beneficiary.

On April 28, 2025, Morts filed limited Opposition to the motion. She does not oppose bifurcation of the removal and accounting causes of action; however, she opposes bifurcation of trial of financial elder abuse. Morts contends that bifurcation of this issue would require duplicative testimony. In addition, she argues that the elder abuse was the motive of respondents to unduly influence Conrad to amend the Trust so as to disinherit her, as well as show that they had the opportunity to unduly influence him. She contends that respondents believed that if Morts was a beneficiary it would interfere with their wrongfully taking Conrad’s money. Further, she argues that the planned testimony of Aleta Mitchell would rebut respondents’ testimony denying any elder abuse, thereby attacking their credibility. Finally, Morts asserts that she does have standing to assert financial elder abuse as one of Conrad’s children.

On May 2, 2025, Mesnick filed a Reply in further support of the motion. He reiterates that trying whether there was financial elder abuse will double the length of trial and go far beyond the four days now scheduled. He also asserts that raising elder abuse after Conrad’s death is barred by laches where she was aware of this claim before he died. In addition, he asserts that whether there was financial elder abuse is collateral to whether there was undue influence; Morts has not shown a causal nexus that committing financial elder abuse would demonstrate there was undue influence. Finally, he contends that Morts still lacks standing where she is not a residual beneficiary. (Lickter v. Lickter (2010) 189 Cal.App.4^th 712) (Only a child having a property right in or claim against a trust which may be affected by the proceeding would be an “interested person” under Probate Code sec. 48(a)(1) with standing. (Id.))

The Court finds Morts lacks standing at this time to assert financial elder abuse where she is not a beneficiary of the Trust. If or when she proves she is a residuary beneficiary (which would also require invalidating a later amendment that made a specific bequest to her, as well as still later amendments or restatements that appear to disinherit her and her sister Joan altogether), she may then make that claim. (Lickter, supra) That she is one of Conrad’s children is not in and of itself sufficient to give standing. (Id.)

Moreover, even assuming Morts did have standing, the Court does not find that if there was financial elder abuse that this would prove respondents committed undue influence (or show that they cannot rebut a presumption of undue influence (if the burden were shifted).[2] Financial elder abuse and undue influence are very different issues. Morts’ claim that elder abuse would establish a motive for undue influence is stretched: Preventing Conrad from giving Morts a one-ninth share of his residual estate at his death would not have prevented earlier financial elder abuse while Conrad was still living. Further, at best, Morts would not then have had any vested interest in the Trust (under the earliest versions of the Trust dated January 26, 2010 and March 16, 2011 giving her a residual interest) until Conrad died.[3] Until Conrad died, at least Mesnick had no duties to Morts as Conrad, as settlor, still had the right to revoke the Trust. (Estate of Giraldin (2012) 55 Cal.4^th 1058) Moreover, as to her siblings, there was no reason why Morts having only an interest post-death would give rise to any limitation on Conrad electing to make gifts to others while he was alive. Finally, Morts has not shown how whether there was financial elder abuse would have interfered with her receiving the specific gift of $250,000 in the Second Amendment dated February 1, 2013. The issue to be tried first is why Conrad made the amendments so as to disinherit Morts, not whether money was wrongfully taken from him.

Finally, under these circumstances, the Court finds that Mesnick has established the factors under CCP secs 598 and 1048(b) for bifurcation of the trial of financial elder abuse. Bifurcation may save significant time and expense and will be without any prejudice to Morts – who will still be able to pursue the deferred issues if she proves she is a beneficiary.

Nothing herein precludes Morts from fully pursuing the first two causes of action seeking to invalidate the various amendments based on lack of capacity or undue influence. Specifically, Morts may attack the credibility of respondents by introducing rebuttal testimony of Aleta Mitchell to the extent that respondents dispute Morts’ claims of undue influence, under Evid. Code sec. 1101(c) or such testimony as is relevant to proving undue influence, under Evid. Code sec. 1101(b).

[1] In this regard, Mesnick argues that Morts is precluded from asserting elder abuse as this would be merely character evidence to show a propensity to commit wrongdoing, barred by Evidence Code sec. 1101(a).

[2] The alleged financial elder abuse appears to center on Christian Conrad having obtained Conrad’s funds to pay for construction work on a property, Shane Conrad obtaining a $5,000 monthly allowance from Conrad and Mesnick receiving a specific gift of $250,000.

[3] Hence, respondents’ claim that Morts should have brought these issues up before Conrad passed likely fails because if she had brought the claim then they would have asserted she had no standing at that time to do so.